“I saw this story on a national daily website so I found thisisbristol to post this comment.

Surely if the police think this person is up to no good with the drives, they have three choices.

Get better lawyers to re-draft the search warrants and do it again. If I am wrong about this, well I'm no lawyer. Somebody can tell me.

Appeal the decision.

Hand the stuff back.

What they absolutely shouldn't do is keep it. Senior officers and police spokesmen are always saying the public "should not take the law into their own hands" even when they are defending themselves or their property against the various types of yob infesting the country now.
Well the same principle applies (doubly) to them.”

“Apologies for having to post another comment, but i thought that it was important to note that the actual images on the material in question are censured, as you would expect. in the vast majority of cases, the image is not necessary in order to conduct a forensic examination of the material, just the relevant coding etc. the claim that there are thousands of images on the equipment seized from Mr bates is false, as the police constable well knows. if there are any images at all they relate to cases that again have legal privilege and are relevant to previous cases that are still ongoing. to suggest that handing back the equipment would be to distribute thousands of indecent images is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. not only is it obvious to anyone that distributing evidence of this nature without censure, even to experts, would be inappropriate, unless vital to the forensic examination, it is also the case that no decent human being would want to have to crawl through thousands of disturbing images, whether an expert witness or not. To suggest that Mr Bates, a man who has worked on countless cases and examined an unimaginable amount of evidence, would be crawling through all the images that were relevant in these cases is absurd. Indeed, no one, at Avon and summerset or elsewhere, would make this suggestion as they well know that images are censured before evidence is given to expert witnesses, unless they are vital to the work to be undertaken.”

“Thank you Rich. Bristol.
There is a real need for everyone to be informed about this case as Avon Police are trying to explain their actions away by 'sighting' that holding on to 'the material,' that was taken from Bates, the computer expert, is 'justified' because by doing so they are protecting children.
In other words they have rolled out the child protection banner and are sheltering under it !
The 'row' about the 'police raid' on Mr Bates and the 'taking' of 'material from his home does not seem to have anything to do with child protection, in practice.
It would seem to be more to do with 'obstructing' a court case.
Nothing is adding up right !
There is a rank smell of fish around this case !”

“having just read the article again, i notice that it refers to Mr Bates as a 'discredited' expert witness. this is in fact not true. Mr bates continues to act as an expert witness, and his credibility to act as an expert witness in all matters to do with computer forensics remains unquestionable. indeed, no expert in the land would challenge his expertise in court. this 'discredited' refers to a perjury on a technicality. my understanding is that Mr bates stated on his witness reports that he had a degree, which he had the understanding he was entitled to do as he had what he thought was an equivalent qualification. to suggest that Mr bates was or is not qualified as a computer forensics expert is gross misrepresentation, i realise that i have posted a lot of comment on this case, but i feel that it is the right of the public to have all the facts before making up their minds, particularly when it comes to a police chief prepared to defy the law.”

“just to add a note, which i thought i had mentioned in my previous post - the evidence relevant to Mr Bates arrest, which the police claim he tried to obtain by deception and on which the police applied a warrant of seizure for (deliberately from the wrong court), was in fact given to Mr bates by Avon and summerset police department at an arrange time in order for him to carry out his forensic work for the relevant case. this was arranged and agreed as part of the trial in question, indeed legal funding was granted for the defendant in question specifically for Mr bates and his fellow expert witness to carry out the relevant forensic examination. Avon and summerset police gave him the evidence to examine weeks before they decided to arrest him. if avon and summerset had any question about his legitimacy, they would not have given him the evidence in the first place, and if they did then this police chief must answer the question why he gave this material to someone he suspected to be a paedophile? Avon and summerset now claim that they have had this suspicion about Mr bates for some time, yet they give him the evidence. if it is true that they had this suspicion, then they were negligent at best in handing over the equipment. however, as we know from information obtained, they did not, and never have, had any suspicion about Mr bates. it is clear that the sole reason for the seizure of the evidence was to obstruct and manipulate the trial in question that was to take place 2 days later. Though they had weeks to arrest Mr Bates and seize this material, if they did have any concerns, they wait until just before the trial on which Mr bates report, which incidentally cleared the defendant in question, was dependant before arresting him. Not only is the timing more than suspicious, there is also incontrovertible evidence that this manipulation of the trial was in fact their exact and sole reason for the arrest of Mr bates and his colleague and the seizure of the material in question. Again, this is only the tip of the iceberg in this case, and there are further cases which will be reviled in time¿”